ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 10
BECHOROS 7-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Rabah now proves from the Beraisa (where Rebbi Shimon includes Peter
Chamor in the list of things that are not a food, but precludes Basar
be'Chalav, because one is able to feed it to Nochrim) - Rebbi Shimon must
agree that a Peter Chamor that had its neck broken is Asur be'Hana'ah,
because otherwise, he ought to have listed it with Basar be'Chalav.
(b) To refute Rabah's proof, we establish the Beraisa - when the owner did
not have in mind to eat it (otherwise, Rebbi Shimon would indeed have done
(c) The Rabbanan (Amora'im) explained in front of Rav Sheishes that the
Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Shimon, because they hold 'Isuro Chishuvo',
meaning - that a Peter Chamor does not require Machshavah, since the Isur
renders it a food (because the fact that the Torah forbids it is a sure sign
that it must be edible to Nochrim).
(a) The Mishnah in Taharos lists thirteen things in connection with Nivlas
Of Tahor, one of them, that it requires Machshavah (another that it does not
require Hechsher). The problem with this is - that since the Torah forbids
Nivlas Of Tahor, the Rabbanan ought to say there too 'Isuro Chishuvo', and
it ought not to require Machshavah.
(b) The Mishnah in Uktzin says the same about the Neveilah of a Beheimah
Temei'ah anywhere and Nivlas Of Tahor and (Cheilev [this does not appear in
the Mishnah in Uktzin] in the villages. The Tana restricts the latter to
villages, but not the former - because a. whereas all Nochrim tend to
consider the Neveilah of a Beheimah Temei'ah disgusting, those who live in
towns (who are generally more wealthy than those who live in villages), do
eat Nivlas Of Tahor (which do not therefore require Machshavah to render it
a food), and b. because the latter possesses only one prohibition for a
Yisrael, the former possesses two.
(c) We have the same problem with the Rabbanan from this Mishnah as we just
had from the previous one, both of which we solve - by establishing their
author as Rebbi Shimon.
(a) Another Mishnah in Uktzin rules that Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah and Nivlas
Of ha'Tahor and Cheilev (Shechutah) in the market-places (i.e. in town)
require neither Machshavah nor Hechsher. Hechsher is not required in ...
1. ... all the current cases of Neveilah - because whatever stands to be
Metamei a stringent Tum'ah at some stage (to be Metamei Adam ve'Keilim) does
not require Hechsher.
(b) This only applies in the market-place - where the Shechitah renders the
Cheilev a food automatically, but not the villages, where the people do not
generally eat the fat.
2. ... the case of Cheilev (Shechutah) - because the Shechitah (which
rendered the animal a food, did the same for the Cheilev).
(c) Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah does not require Machshavah (like Nivlas
Beheimah Temei'ah does) - a. because it is not disgusting in the eyes of
Nochrim (like Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah), and b. as opposed to Nivlas Of
Tamei, there is only one prohibition as regards a Yisrael.
(d) Here again, we are faced with the same problem regarding Isuro Chishuvo,
from the implication (that Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah does require
Machshavah). We cannot establish the author as Rebbi Shimon, like we did in
the previous cases - because Rebbi Shimon speaks in the Seifa (implying that
he is not the author of the Reisha).
(a) Rebbi Shimon rules that the Neveilah of a camel, a hare, a rabbit and a
pig - require neither Machshavah nor Hechsher ...
(b) ... because they all have at least one Siman Taharah.
(c) We have now proved from the Reisha of this last Mishnah - that not even
the Rabbanan hold 'Isuro Chishuvo'.
(a) Rava therefore establishes the Rabbanan in the Beraisa (who list Pidyon
Peter Chamor as a food) - where the owner Shechted the animal in order to
practice Hilchos Shechitah (and that is what renders it a food [even without
(b) Rava needs to say that he Shechted it to practice Shechitah- because if
he Shechted it S'tam, then even Rebbi Shimon would agree that it is a food.
(c) And the basis of their Machlokes is - whether a Shechitah that one
performs in order to practice is considered a Shechitah (like one that is
performed to prepare the animal for eating [the Rabbanan]) or not (Rebbi
(a) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, quoting Nimus (the brother of Rebbi Yehoshua
ha'Garsi), rules that if someone Shechts a raven in order to practice
Shechitah - the blood of the Shechitah is Machshir ...
(b) ... the seeds on which it falls.
(c) Rebbi Elazar disagrees. He holds that the blood of Shechitah is always
Machshir, by which he means - even the bird itself.
(d) And we suggest that the basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'Isuro
Choshvo' (Rebbi Elazar) or not (Rebbi Yossi quoting Nimus).
(a) We conclude however, that even Rebbi Elazar does not hold 'Isuro
Chishuvo', and the reason that the Shechitah of the raven is Machshir it
(even without Machshavah) is - because the raven has two Simnei Taharah ...
(b) ... and we know that Simnei Taharah affect the status of the animal,
because that is what Rebbi Shimon says in the Seifa of the Mishnah in Uktzin
(as we learned earlier).
(c) If that is the reason, the problem with the case presented by the
Beraisa is - why the Tana needs to present it as 'Shechting to practice';
why did he not rather present a case where he Shechted without meaning to do
so (Lehis'asek, where he did not even intend to Shecht) to teach us that
even such a Shechitah is Machshir?
(d) And we answer - that the Tana does so on account of Nimus, to teach us
that even a Shechitah that he performed intentionally is not Machshir.
(e) We cite this Beraisa - to prove that, according to Rava's interpretation
of the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon, which we discussed
on the previous Amud, the Rabbanan hold like Nimus and Rebbi Shimon, like
(a) Abaye asks from a Beraisa, which discusses the Din of the Peter Chamor
in the event that the owner refuses to redeem it. He is obligated to - cut
its neck with a carving knife and bury it.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah adds 've'Asur be'Hana'ah'. Rebbi Shimon - says 'Mutar'.
(c) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Rabah - who said earlier that Rebbi
Shimon concedes that after the donkey's neck is broken, it is Asur
(d) So we amend the Beraisa to read - 'u'me'Chayim Asur be'Hana'ah ... Rebbi
(a) The problem with this explanation is from the Seifa, where the Tana
1. ... killing the donkey with a cane, a spade or saw.
(b) And he cites Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids shearing it or working with it.
Rebbi Shimon - permits it.
2. ... placing it in a locked room and letting it die by itself.
(c) Assuming that they both speak whilst the donkey is still alive, we
reconcile the Seifa with the Reisha - by establishing the Reisha by Hana'as
Damav (the Seifa is in any event speaking about Hana'as ha'Guf) ...
(d) ... meaning - for example, that the owner rented it out.
(e) Having taught us the Machlokes in ...
1. ... the Reisha, the Tana needed to repeat it in the Seifa, to teach us
that Rebbi Shimon permits even Hana'as Damav.
2. ... the Seifa, he needed to repeat it in the Reisha, to teach us that
Rebbi Yehudah forbids even Hana'as Gufo.
(a) Initially, Rav Nachman, quoting Rabah bar Avuhah, who agrees with Rabah,
cites the source for that ... as a Beraisa, where the Tana learns from the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Arifah" "Arifah" from Eglah Arufah - that just as the
latter is Asur be'Hana'ah after its death, so too, is the former.
(b) Rav Nachman tries to prove from there - that the author must be Rebbi
Shimon - who permits the donkey be'Hana'ah during its lifetime and who
therefore needs a Pasuk to teach us that it becomes Asur after it dies, just
like Rabah said.
(c) Rav Sheishes rejects Rav Nachman's proof, by arguing that even according
to Rebbi Yehudah, who already forbade the donkey whilst it was alive, the
Tana would need to teach us that it remains Asur when it is dead - because
we would otherwise have thought that breaking its neck replaces the
redemption of the lamb, permitting the donkey be'Hana'ah just as the lamb
would have done.
(d) So Rav Nachman tries to prove it from a Beraisa learned by Levi, which
ascribes the obligation of cutting the donkey's neck - to the fact that 'he
caused the Kohen to lose (therefore he deserves to lose)'.
(a) Rav Nachman tries to prove from there that the author must be Rebbi
Shimon - because, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the donkey was already
forbidden whilst it was alive, and he would not be losing anything after its
(b) We reconcile the Beraisa with ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - by citing 'P'seida de'Beini Beini', which means that
as long as the donkey's neck has not been broken, it can always be redeemed
by a lamb, so that when it dies, the owner loses the balance (between the
donkey and the lamb).
(c) Resh Lakish too, holds like Rabah and Rav Nachman. Rebbi Yochanan (or
Rebbi Elazar) says - that Rebbi Shimon argues after the donkey's death and
permits it be'Hana'ah, just like he does during its lifetime.
2. ... Rebbi Shimon, even if he permits the donkey be'Hana'ah after its
death - because in any event, he will lose the balance between the live
donkey and the dead one.
(a) Others cite Rav Nachman with regard to the Mishnah in Kidushin
'ha'Mekadesh be'Peter Chamor, Einah Mekudeshes'. We think that the author
cannot be Rebbi Shimon - because he permits a Peter Chamor be'Hana'ah, so
why should he not be able to betroth a woman with it?
(b) To refute this suggestion, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establishes
the Mishnah - by a Peter Chamor whose neck has been broken, even according
to Rebbi Shimon, who concedes that the donkey then becomes Asur, as we
(c) In the second Lashon, we ask that the Mishnah appears to go neither like
Rebbi Shimon nor like Rebbi Yehudah - according to whom the donkey is at
least worth to the owner (and to the woman) the balance between itself and
the lamb with which it is redeemed.
(d) Rabah bar Avuhah Amar Rav therefore establishes the Mishnah in Kidushin
(like Rebbi Yehudah this time) - where the donkey is worth only a Shekel
(i.e. a Sela), which is the minimum value of the lamb with which it is
redeemed (as we shall now see), in which case it is worth nothing.
(a) Rav equates Rebbi Yehudah with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa.
The Tana Kama learns from the word "Tifdeh" from the two times that the
Torah writes in Bo and in Ki Sisa "u'Feter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh" - a.
"Tifdeh", 'Miyad'; b. "Tifdeh", 'Kol she'Hu' (that the owner may redeem it
for a lamb immediately, and that the lamb may be worth no more than a Kol
(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Tana Kama's second
ruling. He requires the lamb to be worth at least a Shekel.
(c) If not for "Tifdeh" "Tifdeh", we would have learned from the Pasuk "es
Bechor ha'Adam ve'es Bechor ha'Beheimah Tifdeh" - that just as a Bechor Adam
can only be redeemed after thirty days and for not less than five Sela'im,
so too Pidyon Peter Chamor.
(a) 'Mah Nafshach', we ask - if Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds of the
Hekesh to Bechor Adam, then the lamb ought to be worth at least five
Shekalim (and not just one), and if he does not, then where does he derive
the one Shekel from?
(b) As we conclude, he does not learn from Bechor Adam - but from the Pasuk
in Bechukosai "ve'Chol Erk'cha Yih'yeh be'Shekel ha'Kodesh", which refers to
(c) According to the Rabbanan, the Pasuk "ve'Chol Erk'cha ... " refers - to
someone who declares 'Erki Alai', and does not have the money to pay his
full Erech. He is assessed by the Kohen as to how much he is able to pay,
and the Torah is teaching us here, that the Kohen may not assess him for
less than one Shekel.
(a) Rav Nachman rules like the Rabbanan, and according to Rav Yosef, this
includes even a Petruza worth a Danka - which means a particularly weak lamb
that is worth only a sixth of a Zuz.
(b) It is not at all obvious - that 'Kol she'Hu' includes an animal that is
worth quite so little or that is quite so weak.